1970 (4) TMI 127 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether the transactions referred to are sales within the meaning of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act 1958 or whether they were merely works contracts? Held that - Appeal dismissed. Mere transfer of property in goods used in the performance of a contract is not sufficient; to constitute a sale there must be an agreement express or implied relating to the sale of goods and completion of the agreement by passing of the title in the very goods contracted to be sold. Ultimately the true effect of an accretion made pursuant to a contract has to be judged not by an artificial rule that the accretion may be presumed to have become by virtue of affixing to a chattel part of that chattel but from the intention of the parties to the contract

Summary

Issues:
1. Determination of whether transactions are "sales" or works contracts under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958.
2. Assessment of tax liability on turnovers related to the transactions.
3. Imposition of penalty under section 18(6) of the Act.

The Supreme Court of India heard appeals arising from a decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh regarding references made under section 44 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958. The central issue was to ascertain if the transactions in question constituted "sales" under the Act or were works contracts. The High Court held that they were works contracts, thereby not subject to taxation under the Act. The transactions involved the appellant entering contracts with the S.E. Railway to break stones and supply ballast. The appellant received payments for these works during two assessment periods. The key contention was whether there was a transfer of property in goods, a prerequisite for a transaction to be considered a sale under the Act.

The contracts required the appellant to quarry stones from railway-owned quarries, break them into ballast, and supply them to the railway. The court emphasized that the property in the ballast remained with the railway throughout the process, making it impossible for the appellant to transfer any property in the ballast. The court rejected the tax authorities' argument that the transactions constituted sales under section 2(n) of the Act, as there was no transfer of property from the appellant to the railway. The court also dismissed the penalty imposed, as no sale had occurred.

The court analyzed clauses in the agreements, noting that the appellant's obligation to remove rejected ballast did not imply ownership. Additionally, the clause requiring the appellant to pay a royalty to the railway did not alter the railway's ownership of the quarry. Referring to the case of C.B. Gosain v. State of Orissa, the court highlighted the distinction between contracts for work done and materials found versus contracts for the sale of goods. It emphasized that in a contract for sale, the property in the goods must pass to the other party for a price, which did not occur in this case. The appeals were dismissed, with no costs awarded to the respondent due to their absence during the proceedings.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court ruled that the transactions between the appellant and the S.E. Railway were works contracts and not sales under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958. The court found that there was no transfer of property in goods, essential for a sale to occur, and therefore, the turnovers related to these transactions were not taxable. The penalty imposed on the appellant was also deemed unsustainable.